News Cindy Sheehan Arrested at White House Protest

[Huckleberry]

Hell what if I wanted to protest the government by not paying taxes? What if everyone did it? Government collapses, the country collapses.

Protest by parking my car in the middle of Interstate 5? Tremendous traffic jam, possible accidents, possible loss of life.

Yell fire in a crowded theatre? Well I think most of the people here know the answer here!

Are you people just so naive as to think that society can run in anarchy?

Most of these things violate other people's rights. As the government does not have the authority to violate your civil rights, you do not have the authority violate the rights of other civilians. I think that is just common sense.

 

[MaxS]

Incorrect. Your argument was emotionally charged rhetoric that has no basis in reality.

This was my arguement:

Yes I did take some American Government classes

They taught me that the most important things that make america so special are the preamble to the declaration of independance, which guarantees me life, liberty, and happyness, and the bill of rights of the U.S. constitution, which protects my right to life, liberty, and happyness.

This means that any legislation, body, entity, or person that seeks to impede upon the bill of rights or the constitution is comitting treason and is seeking to limit my ability to pursue those 3 key aspects mentioned in the preamble.

------

Does that look like emotionally charged rhetoric to you?

If what I said there has no basis in reality, maybe you would be better off living in North Korea.

 

[deckart]

This was my arguement:

Yes I did take some American Government classes

They taught me that the most important things that make america so special are the preamble to the declaration of independance, which guarantees me life, liberty, and happyness, and the bill of rights of the U.S. constitution, which protects my right to life, liberty, and happyness.

This means that any legislation, body, entity, or person that seeks to impede upon the bill of rights or the constitution is comitting treason and is seeking to limit my ability to pursue those 3 key aspects mentioned in the preamble.

------

Does that look like emotionally charged rhetoric to you?

If what I said there has no basis in reality, maybe you would be better off living in North Korea.

So, what are you doing about it?

 

[hitssquad]

Max,

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence...
http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html

...not in the Preamble to the Constitution.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.preamble.html

 

[JamesU]

I have to agree with Max.

...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble...

she was peacfully assembling. just because she has some signs doesn't make it any different. she had every right to be there.

Max,

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence...
http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html

...not in the Preamble to the Constitution.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.preamble.html

he said the preamble to the declaration of independance

 

[russ_watters]

MaxS, the bottom line here is that you are unwilling to accept the fact that all rights have limits, even the right to freedom of speech. Whether in this specific case, the protester stepped over the line isn't really important to whether or not such a line exists. And it does (and must) exist.

 

[JamesU]

when did she 'step over the limits'? when does protesting by sitting on a sidewalk with signs harm anybody in any way? we were even taught in school: 'if I wanted to go outside the White House and peacefully protest, without hurting anybody, it would be perfectly legal'

 

[pattylou]

The charge was obstructing the flow of (foot) traffic...

Or words to that effect.

IMU there was a group of people, not just one woman, and several were arrested, not just Cindy.

 

[Pengwuino]

Most of these things violate other people's rights. As the government does not have the authority to violate your civil rights, you do not have the authority violate the rights of other civilians. I think that is just common sense.

And how isn't the permitting process common sense? What if (and this has happened before, many times) two groups want to protest at hte same place? What if people would like to actually drive their cars or walk along the sidewalk and all of a sudden your blocking their way? Invading their rights as well! Yes, this is common sense. Permitting is common sense.

 

[Pengwuino]

when did she 'step over the limits'? when does protesting by sitting on a sidewalk with signs harm anybody in any way? we were even taught in school: 'if I wanted to go outside the White House and peacefully protest, without hurting anybody, it would be perfectly legal'

Yes its legal but you need a permit because you are obstructing traffic. Many protests normally have to have the streets blocked off so you get a permit which informs the city that you will need the streets blocked... less you want to get run over or make people late for work.

 

[Evo]

Ok genious the courts have NO right to take away my rights as defined in the bill of rights.

They, as part of the federal government, share a responsibility in DEFENDING those rights.

First, stop with the personal attack.

Max, since you seem not to understand laws in the US, perhaps you should read up before continuing in this thread.

Here's a test - can anyone tell me what loitering means? Seems no one has a grasp on that one either.

 

[JamesU]

umm...prtests have been going on here. I've never heard of an arrest here because of the lack of foot traffic. that doeasn't even count as 'disturbing the peace'

 

[MaxS]

Max,

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence...
http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html

...not in the Preamble to the Constitution.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.preamble.html

I said the preamble to the declaration..

 

[Manchot]

Pengwuino, I suggest that you watch the video footage from MSNBC.com. The police had already moved the protest down the street and behind barricades. (Listen to the reporter speaking). Therefore, the portion of sidewalk that she was sitting down on was not intended for foot traffic, and they were disrupting no one's motion. Hence, they were breaking no laws. Plain and simple.

 

[Evo]

Pengwuino, I suggest that you watch the video footage from MSNBC.com. The police had already moved the protest down the street and behind barricades. (Listen to the reporter speaking). Therefore, the portion of sidewalk that she was sitting down on was not intended for foot traffic, and they were disrupting no one's motion. Hence, they were breaking no laws. Plain and simple.

They did if they didn't have a permit.

 

[Manchot]

Nope. As we've established, you don't have to have a permit as long as you're on public property and you're not obstructing anyone. For all those who are interested, here's the quote from the MSNBC reporter:

"...and they were moved a bit a farther down the street, and they were put behind barricades which had been on the street all weekend. It was at that point that Cindy Sheehan and others sat down on the sidewalk."

 

[Astronuc]

Sheehan could be engaging in 'civil disobedience', and if so, she should expect to get arrested, and it seems that is the plan . . .

On Monday, Sheehan and several other parents of fallen soldiers were among some 300 activists arrested in a mass civil disobedience on the sidewalk outside the White House.

While right-wing critics like Rush Limbaugh like to suggest she's being bankrolled by Move On, Michael Moore, and other elements of the "limousine left," Sheehan's crusade is still very much a grassroots affair. When she and the rest of the Bring Them Home Now tour hit Washington this week to challenge Bush to meet with them and put the heat on Congress for funding the war, they crashed on couches and slept on bunkbeds at an international youth hostel.

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0539,ferguscd,68201,2.html

 

[hitssquad]

Sheehan could be engaging in 'civil disobedience'

Normally, civil disobediance involves going limp and passively being carried away. However, in this picture Sheehan can be seen groping the two police officers who are carrying her, and almost reaching one's Glock with her right hand.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/Iraq/2005/09/26/1236538-ap.html

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/gun_retention.html
"By going for my gun, the kid gloves have come off."

 

[Evo]

Nope. As we've established, you don't have to have a permit as long as you're on public property and you're not obstructing anyone.

"Sgt. Scott Fear, spokesman for the U.S. Park Police, said they would be charged with demonstrating without a permit, which is a misdemeanor."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/26/wardemonstrations.ap/index.html

As you can see from the picture, they're clearly obstructing pedestrian traffic. How can "hundreds of protestors" not be an obstruction?

As Astronuc pointed out, it's considered civil disobedience. They knew they would be arrested.

 

[MaxS]

MaxS, the bottom line here is that you are unwilling to accept the fact that all rights have limits, even the right to freedom of speech. Whether in this specific case, the protester stepped over the line isn't really important to whether or not such a line exists. And it does (and must) exist.

This is absolutely wrong.

The role of the government is to protect my fundamental rights and liberties.

Any time the government impedes or restricts those rights it has failed its duty.

 

[MaxS]

First, stop with the personal attack.

Max, since you seem not to understand laws in the US, perhaps you should read up before continuing in this thread.

Here's a test - can anyone tell me what loitering means? Seems no one has a grasp on that one either.

I DO understand the laws of the United States.

Where do you go off thinking that I am ignorant as to the law?

I am pointing out that those laws are WRONG.

 

[Moonbear]

I think I am the only one here realizing there have been rights that have been infringed upon for the last 2 centuries. How can one be so ignorant as to think that people should be allowed to do absolutely anything and everything they want to do without an insignificant bit of restraint?

Hell what if I wanted to protest the government by not paying taxes? What if everyone did it? Government collapses, the country collapses.

Protest by parking my car in the middle of Interstate 5? Tremendous traffic jam, possible accidents, possible loss of life.

Yell fire in a crowded theatre? Well I think most of the people here know the answer here!

Are you people just so naive as to think that society can run in anarchy?

She was charged for not obtaining a permit, that is my objection. If she had been charged with obstructing traffic, creating a public safety risk, assaulting a police officer, disorderly conducting, inciting riot, etc., then I would not be here arguing over it. But just the fact that someone is sitting in an office deciding who can or cannot protest by requiring a permit, that is a violation of the first amendment and I have a BIG problem with that. Are these permits free? Does EVERYONE who applies for one get one? If so, why require them in the first place? If not, then that is limiting people's Consitutional rights. If there was nothing they could have charged her with if she did have a permit, then why would she need it other than to suppress her rights?

I am not taking this position because of who she was protesting, but because of the restriction placed on ALL OUR freedoms by requiring a permit to protest. You should be allowed to stage a counter protest if you want without a permit. If someone were out on that same sidewalk protesting liberal policies and were arrested under the same charges, I would still be upset over it.

It's entirely possible there were other reasons for the arrest, such as lining up the protesters in a way that did impede pedestrian traffic or required pedestrians to step into the street to get around them, but then why wasn't that the charge? I realize this woman is on a crusade against Bush, and may have purposely been antagonizing the cops to get herself arrested and make it a bigger news story, in which case the arrest may have been justified (in fact, when I first saw the headline, that's what I expected to read and wasn't feeling sympathetic toward her at all), but that still does not mean the charge of protesting without a permit is a justified or constitutional charge.

 

[Evo]

Actually, there could be multiple charges against her and the others. They picked the least of the charges, it's a ticket, which a judge will probably dismiss. I can't believe the fuss over this.

Also, demonstrating in front of a Federal building can bring federal charges. Not sure how the White House is classified. They knew they needed a permit and probably didn't get one intentionally. People are rarely denied a permit AFAIK.

Moonbear, they were asked three times to disperse and they refused. They were given fair warning. The authorities had no choice and this had to be done, otherwise a group like the KKK could do the same and expect not to be made to disperse.

 

[Moonbear]

"Sgt. Scott Fear, spokesman for the U.S. Park Police, said they would be charged with demonstrating without a permit, which is a misdemeanor."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/26/wardemonstrations.ap/index.html

As you can see from the picture, they're clearly obstructing pedestrian traffic. How can "hundreds of protestors" not be an obstruction?

As Astronuc pointed out, it's considered civil disobedience. They knew they would be arrested.

I hadn't seen the photos earlier. Is protesting without a permit the ONLY charge? This is the part that still makes no sense. Were the police indicating they were sympathetic to the protest by choosing that charge? If the reason the permits are required are to provide notification to the police to help regulate traffic flow around the protest, then why not just require the protest be registered rather than issue a permit? A permit suggests you need permission, whereas registration would indicate you don't need permission, anyone could protest, but you just have to let someone know your intentions so they can accommodate the crowd and ensure the safety of the protesters.

 

[Evo]

I hadn't seen the photos earlier. Is protesting without a permit the ONLY charge? This is the part that still makes no sense. Were the police indicating they were sympathetic to the protest by choosing that charge? If the reason the permits are required are to provide notification to the police to help regulate traffic flow around the protest, then why not just require the protest be registered rather than issue a permit? A permit suggests you need permission, whereas registration would indicate you don't need permission, anyone could protest, but you just have to let someone know your intentions so they can accommodate the crowd and ensure the safety of the protesters.

See my above edit.

 

[Smurf]

Here's a test - can anyone tell me what loitering means? Seems no one has a grasp on that one either.

I don't see what loitering has to do with demonstrating?

 

[Moonbear]

Moonbear, they were asked three times to disperse and they refused. They were given fair warning. The authorities had no choice and this had to be done, otherwise a group like the KKK could do the same and expect not to be made to disburse.

I'm not disputing whether they made a public nuisance and there was likely an arrestable offense there. It doesn't matter if it's a war protest or the KKK, as long as the protest is peaceful. We don't get to pick and choose whose rights are protected and whose aren't just because we agree or disagree with their message. Sitting down with signs sounds peaceful to me. The risk is that all it will take if someone doesn't like the message of a protest is to send some cops out to tell them to disperse, whether the request is justified or not, and if they don't listen and continue protesting, they get arrested. It's a rather quick way to end a protest, even if the charges later get dropped (often that is the case, which means they then can't be challenged).

 

[Evo]

I don't see what loitering has to do with demonstrating?

The point is you can be arrested/ticketed for loitering. People were saying it's not illegal to stand around in a public place. Yep, it's called loitering.

according to Merriam Webster

Loiter

Main Entry: loi·ter
Pronunciation: 'loi-t&r
Function: intransitive verb
Etymology: Middle English
1 : to delay an activity with aimless idle stops and pauses : DAWDLE
2 a : to remain in an area for no obvious reason : HANG AROUND b : to lag behind

 

[Evo]

I'm not disputing whether they made a public nuisance and there was likely an arrestable offense there. It doesn't matter if it's a war protest or the KKK, as long as the protest is peaceful. We don't get to pick and choose whose rights are protected and whose aren't just because we agree or disagree with their message. Sitting down with signs sounds peaceful to me. The risk is that all it will take if someone doesn't like the message of a protest is to send some cops out to tell them to disperse, whether the request is justified or not, and if they don't listen and continue protesting, they get arrested. It's a rather quick way to end a protest, even if the charges later get dropped (often that is the case, which means they then can't be challenged).

Well, that's my point, I would expect any group that acted in this manner to have been arrested. I'm not surprised that they were. I'm sure they wanted to be arrested to get more press.

 

[Moonbear]

The point is you can be arrested/ticketed for loitering. People were saying it's not illegal to stand around in a public place. Yep, it's called loitering.

according to Merriam Webster

Loiter

Main Entry: loi·ter
Pronunciation: 'loi-t&r
Function: intransitive verb
Etymology: Middle English
1 : to delay an activity with aimless idle stops and pauses : DAWDLE
2 a : to remain in an area for no obvious reason : HANG AROUND b : to lag behind

Yeah, that's another law I never understood. Of course it only gets enforced when someone doesn't like the look of the person standing around. It seems if you stand outside in a business suit, people assume you're waiting for your ride home or for an appointment with someone inside, but if you stand around wearing ripped jeans, have a few tattoos and your lip pierced, someone's going to call it loitering. Mostly it's used in areas with a lot of drug dealing or prostitution to keep the "bad elements" off the streets, but that means you're arresting people for looking suspicious or standing around the wrong place, not because they've actually done anything wrong.